| | english | español | français |
  Home|The Cartagena Protocol|SD&I|HTPI Portal|Laboratories|Current Activities   Printer-friendly version

Current Activities 2016-2018

Return to the list of threads...
Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Opening of Discussion [#9127]
Dear Participants,

Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms.

At their last meeting, on Decision CP VIII/16,  the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety requested the Executive Secretary to continue working on the draft training manual, in collaboration with the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and identification of Living Modified organisms, and make a draft version available for consideration at their ninth meeting. Accordingly, an updated version of the draft manual has been prepared by the Secretariat, in collaboration with a small group of experts from the Network, and it is available for review by all participants of the Network.

This discussion will focus on module 2 of the Manual which provides an overview of techniques used in modern biotechnology as well as a brief introduction to the available detection and identification methods, including information on protein and DNA-based methods for LMO detection as well as a short discussion on the challenges in LMO detection and new technology developments. The module also provides a summary of the pipeline for the development of LM crops as well as information for considerations for National Strategies towards the detection and identification of LMOs.

Participants are invited to review and provide feedback on the contents for each module during the course of the next 2 weeks. We request that you review the manual from both a technical and editorial perspective focusing on edits and comments that  would provide additional clarity to the manual. In providing your comments, please refer to specific line numbers or highlight the text directly in the Word document containing the module and upload it together with your message.

We look forward to two weeks of constructive and fruitful discussions which will bring us a step closer to the goal of developing and improved version of the manual for the consideration of the COPMOP.

Kindest regards,
Secretariat
posted on 2018-04-02 02:11 UTC by Dina Abdelhakim, SCBD
This is a reply to 9127 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9135]
Hi,
This is Melina Pérez-Urquiza from CENAM-CIBIOGEM-MEXICO
I would like to send you the draft of module 2 with some observations in control of changes about information missing in table 1, and also for PCR section and limit of detection an addition about the Units, uncertainty and the reference, for your consideration
posted on 2018-04-02 14:19 UTC by Dr. MELINA PEREZ-URQUIZA, Mexico
This is a reply to 9135 RE: Module 2 [#9148]
Thank you Melina Pérez-Urquiza for posting the draft of module 2 with the updates.
I added some references for limit of detection of protein-based methods.  I included some observations in table 1, and also for PCR section.  It is not appropriate to include processed products in the table, as these are not LMOs (i.e. not living), and are thus not in scope.
I have also reviewed the rest of the document and made some suggestions for improvements in tracking mode.

I believe it will be important to include isothermal DNA in the new developments.

New Breeding technologies such as gene editing are not defined as LMOs by the BSP as of today, and therefore cannot be considered in scope (Line 303-305), even though there are discussions ongoing about this topic.

I added sources for reference materials where available, and methods databases, as these are referred to by the BCH database.  I hope that these will address some of the issues raised by Mr Ermias Masresha of Ethiopia.

I believe strongly that reference to one testing laboratory (table 1) without reference to all others is not appropriate as it is unfair to all other providers, and may suggest a preference by the BCH.  Also the table is well known facts and we are including citations so it is not necessary to add this link.  

I added language to the section ‘Considerations for National Strategies……’  about the choices that a party can take, emphasizing that the protocol does not require a party to build and maintain a testing laboratory, although they do have to decide on what their policies and procedures will be.
posted on 2018-04-04 13:07 UTC by Dr Raymond Shillito, Bayer CropScience
This is a reply to 9148 RE: Module 2 [#9168]
Dear All,

I reviewed the document 'module 2_27mar18_posted_mx_mpu plus RS', and added my comments and edits in tracking mode too.
I agree with including LAMP in the discussion, added some references.
I made some comments on the detection and quantification limits for PCR (Table 1). Hope they help.
posted on 2018-04-05 19:02 UTC by Dr. Monica Santa-Maria, Peru
This is a reply to 9127 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9175]
Dear all participants

I have added some comments in lines 183-184 and also 189-192. giving a little detail about the use of fluorescent intercalating dyes in RT-PCR.

Best regards,

Emanuel Araya-Valverde
Costa Rica
posted on 2018-04-06 00:19 UTC by Mr. Emanuel Araya, Centro Nacional de Innovaciones Biotecnologicas
This is a reply to 9127 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9181]
Dear Forum Participants,

I would like to thank everyone who has shared their comments on this module so far.

As previously indicated, the main objective of this discussion is to review and provide feedback on the contents of module 2 which can be accessed at http://bch.cbd.int/detectionlabs/trainingmanual/module%202_27mar18_posted.docx.

We request that you review the manual from both a technical and editorial perspective focusing on edits and comments that  would provide additional clarity to the manual. In providing your comments, please refer to specific line numbers or highlight the text directly in the Word document containing the module and upload it together with your message.

I hope you will be able to contribute to this discussion in the coming week and share your knowledge with us in order to contribute to the development of a through and comprehensive training manual.

Kindest regards
Dina
posted on 2018-04-09 16:45 UTC by Dina Abdelhakim, SCBD
This is a reply to 9181 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9192]
POSTED ON BEHALF OF Mr. Adugnaw Admas, ETHIOPIA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for you invitation to participate in this online LMO detection form.
Accordingly your  invitation to review the document,I have tried to see carefully all module, really it is interesting and also, i apperciate the module organizers for collecting best materials of LMO detection document.
And my comment on module 2 is from line 91-94  it will be interested  showing how the vector is prepared?,of course we have seen the rolle of prompter,diseried  and terminator gene,marker gene and desred gene or interested gene,but how can we join it or prepared in laboratory, what other chemicals or equipment is required by giving example.
Thank You
Adugnaw Admas
Ethiopian Environment and Forest Research Institute
Biological Science Research Division Coordinator
Tell 0918561763
posted on 2018-04-10 12:40 UTC by Ms. Melissa Willey, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 9192 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9195]
Dear Forum participants,

I also made some additions (orange boxes) to the text presented in the Post  [#9148].

Best wishes,
Galina
posted on 2018-04-11 10:07 UTC by Dr. Galina Mozgova, Belarus
This is a reply to 9195 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9196]
Greetings, I have been able to look at the document and as an expert and secretary of ISO TC 34/SC 16 horizontal methods for molecular biomarker analysis offer the enclosed marked up draft. Thank you for letting me see this work.
posted on 2018-04-11 12:51 UTC by Dr. Michael Sussman, ISO TC 34/SC 16
This is a reply to 9196 RE: Opening of Discussion [#9201]
I have reviewed the most recent draft and agree with the numerous edits and comments. I would like to point out my uneasiness with lines 132 & 133 of Module 2. "A molecular biology laboratory is essential for LMO test method development and testing. Only a few methods can be executed in the field without laboratory support." While I feel a molecular biology laboratory is essential for method development; “essential” is a strong word and could be taken out of context. It is not essential for every participant to have a molecular biology laboratory capable of method development. Method development verses routine/service testing needs to be stated. I also feel that the protein method capabilities are understated to the point of devaluing them as an economical and robust screening tool. To have an effective and economically feasible program participants should be presented with all available tools for the development of their individual strategies with their available resources. 
Thank you.

Doug Miller
posted on 2018-04-11 16:43 UTC by Mr Douglas Miller, United States of America
This is a reply to 9127 RE: Module 2 [#9209]
Dear colleagues,

many thanks to the authors for writing this module as a basis for the development of training materials, which is a very good starting point.

Module 2 should provide an overview of methodologies applicable to LMO detection and identification. However, I think for training it is most important to completely review advantages and limitation of the diverse approaches. In Europe we have a long history of what is the best and most accurate methodology. PCR is the prefered appraoch, not protein targeting methods, which have some advantages (easy use, cost) but the disadvantage of being not able to identify the LMO and having less sensitivity or being not able to detect the LMO at all.

In addition, I want to highlight the existence of ISO standards existing since more than 10 years and bringing harmonisation to the global apporaches and strategies concerning LMO detection and identification, not limited to food but applicable as well to grains/seeds.

My apologies, not providing comments  to specific line numbers. I added comments and changes/additions directly in the Word document containing the module 2, which is hereby upload  together with my message.

I am look forward for a further and fruitful online discussion towards developing and improving the manuals for the consideration of the COPMOP. Please contact me, if further information, help and expertise is required.

Kind regards and have a nice weekend,
Lutz
posted on 2018-04-13 12:25 UTC by Lutz Grohmann, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
This is a reply to 9209 RE: Module 2 [#9211]
Thank you Lutz for highlighting the ISO efforts in this area.  Indeed the significant investment in cooperative standards setting in TC 34/SC 16 and previous committees, as well as European contributions is also reflected in many of these documents and recommendations.
I provide a link to the committee page: https://www.iso.org/committee/560239.html where lists of both published standards and standards in development can be found.

I wish to also highlight again the Codex document on detection of specific DNA and proteins which was also developed over many years by many countries experts in the field.  This Codex document is also informative in providing guidelines and standards for detection and identification of LMOs: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gmfp/resources/CXG_074e.pdf

Best regards,
posted on 2018-04-13 12:38 UTC by Dr Raymond Shillito, Bayer CropScience